This will be the thread to refer to for all preban information, facts and questions. Feel free to contribute and share your knowledge and experience of the subject with those who want to learn more.

In the state of Connecticut features such as threaded barrels, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, folding, and collapsible stocks are banned under our Assault weapon laws. To get around these rules you have to purchase a weapon manufactured prior to September 13, 1994. These are commonly referred to as "Prebans." When you have a preban gun you can now have all of these so called "Assault features" and still be in compliance with CT laws. The price tag of these complete guns or receivers is significantly higher then a post ban so it is up to the end user if the benefits are worth the cost.

This is not just limited to AR15s, it also includes AKs, M1As, 10/22s, etc.

I'll start this off with some CT statute and build it up as we go.

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

(2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A bayonet mount;

(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) A grenade launcher; or

(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

(iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

(b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.

THIS IS THE SECTION DEALING WITH PREBAN WEAPONS:Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

Quote from JStang who found this innacuracy in the Brownells article."Their article is wrong with regard to Bushmaster. The S/N below LO63000, not 106300"

Preban Colts are banned by name in the state of Connecticut with the rare exception of the Colt Carbine. There are only around 400 of these floating around the USA becuase they were originally made for export. These are not banned by name because they do not bear the markings of "AR15" "SP1" or "Sporter". They are known as the R6521. here is some info and pictures of them.

The section of 53-202m below is the gray area where I would recommend that you buy something that was shipped as a complete rifle or that the original owner sign something like an affidavit that it was built as an assault weapon as defined in (3) or (4) prior to 9/13/1994. A lower manufactured prior to that date but never assembled is not allowed to have evil features as I interpret the law. Of course the usual disclaimers apply, I am not a lawyer.

53-202m "of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994."

Since Olympic burnt, .... I mean had a fire, all of their lowers manufactured prior to "the date" are preban. Bushmaster can tell you wether it was shipped as a complete rifle or lower only and if it was a lower only in 1993 you can pretty much assume it was assembled but if it was shipped as a lower only in August of 1994 I would demand a letter or something signed and notarized that it was assembled as a complete rifle with evil features prior to 9/13/1994.

So, I know some of you don't interpret the law this way but that is how I inrerpret it and I am a fairly intelligent person just ask me. ... LOL.....

Yes this is a grey area for a lot of people. But on an AR15 the lower receiver is technically the firearm. It is the only part with the serial number on it and it is the part that is registered. So that is why this is open to interpretation and it is up to the discretion of the buyer to chose. I agree with you though concerning documentation of the weapon. It provides an extra peace of mind.

The law says "provided such firearm" and SUCH FIREARM is referring to "an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a" so I find it hard to argue that a lower only will meet this criteria. The gray or grey area comes into play when you have a lower with a collapsible stock on it. A lower with a collapsible or folding stock would meet the 2 evil feature requirement and therefore a "lower only" would be legal with evil features so we need to know if it was a "stripped" or what I like to call a "naked" lower or was it a complete lower. This is really the area of question.

So, if the date is close or the confirmation is "lower only" it would be a good idea to get a letter.

I fully see what you are saying about this. A complete rifle would have a much better chance of meeting subdivision 3 requirements, due to a flash suppressor and bayonette lug, even if the lower had an A2 fixed stock.But how do we interpret subdivison 4?

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

So if I buy a stripped preban lower and am in possession of a collapsible stock wouldn't that satisfy the requirements of this subdivision?

For the record, My prebans include 2 PWAs one with a 4 digit serial and one in the 18000s, so both of those are far enough away from the ban date there is nothing to worry about. My Eagle Arms has documentation that it left the factory as a complete rifle in '94. My Stoner SR25 has documentation and my Norinco 84s is far older then the AWB, in fact it came in before the import ban.

The more I am reading the section of statute and thinking about it, the more I am starting to see your point about stripped lowers not making the cut. I guess this is an aspect of prebans worth a lot more research to get a definitive answer.

I guess it is also worth mentioning that anyone who wants to put a silencer on an AR15 in CT would have to have a preban to do so. The simple answer why is that to attach a silencer you would need a threaded barrel, which you cannot have on a post ban. But it goes beyond that as well. Some may ask what if I have a quick attach suppressor mount permanently attached to the barrel? Well a silencer itself is also classified as a flash suppressor which would send you over the 2 "assault features" count and therefore make an illegal assault weapon. With a preban this is not a problem.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Yes this is a grey area for a lot of people. But on an AR15 the lower receiver is technically the firearm. It is the only part with the serial number on it and it is the part that is registered. So that is why this is open to interpretation and it is up to the discretion of the buyer to chose. I agree with you though concerning documentation of the weapon. It provides an extra peace of mind.

But recall that the 1994 Federal Crime Bill required several conditions be met for a firearm to retain pre-ban status:

The reciever must have been made before 13 September 1994

The reciever had to have been assembled as a complete firearm before 13 September 1994

The firearm made with such reciever must have had assault weapon features before 13 September 1994

Remember that the State Of Connecticut defines a firearm as "any sawed-off shotgun, machinegun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from WHICH A SHOT MAY BE DISCHARGED.

A stripped reciever has NO capability of being used to fire a shot, unless assembled into a complete firearm. This is, coincidentally, very similar to the definition used by the feds, who define a reciever as a firearm for transfer purposes. I couldn't find the word 'frame' or 'reciever' anywhere in Connecticut law.

Yeah, that cali stock would free up one feature. But I don't know if I would be willing to give up the functionality of a pistol grip when you can purchase a preban and have it all. I feel real bad for what those gun owners in California have to deal with. We have it pretty good here considering all NFA weapons are legal and a preban gun gets us around the BS AWB. Only thing we are screwed out of is select fire.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Yes this is a grey area for a lot of people. But on an AR15 the lower receiver is technically the firearm. It is the only part with the serial number on it and it is the part that is registered. So that is why this is open to interpretation and it is up to the discretion of the buyer to chose. I agree with you though concerning documentation of the weapon. It provides an extra peace of mind.

But recall that the 1994 Federal Crime Bill required several conditions be met for a firearm to retain pre-ban status:

The receiver must have been made before 13 September 1994

The receiver had to have been assembled as a complete firearm before 13 September 1994

The firearm made with such receiver must have had assault weapon features before 13 September 1994

Remember that the State Of Connecticut defines a firearm as "any sawed-off shotgun, machinegun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from WHICH A SHOT MAY BE DISCHARGED.

A stripped receiver has NO capability of being used to fire a shot, unless assembled into a complete firearm. This is, coincidentally, very similar to the definition used by the feds, who define a receiver as a firearm for transfer purposes. I couldn't find the word 'frame' or 'receiver' anywhere in Connecticut law.

The federal assault weapon ban has sunsetted and therefore it's terminology no longer applies. CT assault weapon ban is written up differently. A lower receiver is a firearm. If it wasn't why does it have to be transferred on a DPS-3-C form, why does it require a 2 week wait with no permit, why can it only be shipped to an FFL and not to your doorstep. On a DPS-3-C form it is listed as a rifle even in stripped form and bears a serial number the same as a complete rifle.

The original definition of an "assault weapon" in the 1993 CT AWB was one of only two things: A listed firearm (such as Colt Sporter, etc) or a semi-auto with a happy switch. Those firearms had to be registered in order to remain legal. In 2001 the definition was expanded greatly, but no additional requirement to register firearms was included.

As best as I can tell, this means semi-auto "pre-bans" which DID NOT meet the ORIGINAL (1993) definition of an AW, but did fall under the 2001 expansion still DO NOT need to be registered.

Am I correct?

(I think I am, because of the lack of a requirement to register in the 2001 legislation)

Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.

Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:

(15) "Machine gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a submachine gun;

(16) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger;

(17) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger;

(18) "Pistol" or "revolver" means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;

(19) "Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

In a lot of other statutes a firearm is refered to as being defined by sec. 53a-3. In the assault weapon statute there is no reference made to 53a-3 and an assaut weapon is defined within its own section. I am wondering if this falls under "Except where different meanings are expressly specified"?

Remember that the State Of Connecticut defines a firearm as "any sawed-off shotgun, machinegun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from WHICH A SHOT MAY BE DISCHARGED.

A stripped reciever has NO capability of being used to fire a shot, unless assembled into a complete firearm. This is, coincidentally, very similar to the definition used by the feds, who define a reciever as a firearm for transfer purposes. I couldn't find the word 'frame' or 'reciever' anywhere in Connecticut law.

That definintion of firearm is for the penal code section not the section that the AWB is under so it has no relivance to the AWB.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:

(15) "Machine gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a submachine gun;

(16) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger;

(17) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger;

(18) "Pistol" or "revolver" means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;

(19) "Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

In a lot of other statutes a firearm is refered to as being defined by sec. 53a-3. In the assault weapon statute there is no reference made to 53a-3 and an assaut weapon is defined within its own section. I am wondering if this falls under "Except where different meanings are expressly specified"?

Title 53a is the Penal Code and Title 53 is crimes where the AWB is. Those definitions are for Title 53a and have no bearing on title 53 unless it is stated in the particular law.

"following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:" wich is not the title the AWB is under.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:

(15) "Machine gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a submachine gun;

(16) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger;

(17) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger;

(18) "Pistol" or "revolver" means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;

(19) "Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

In a lot of other statutes a firearm is refered to as being defined by sec. 53a-3. In the assault weapon statute there is no reference made to 53a-3 and an assault weapon is defined within its own section. I am wondering if this falls under "Except where different meanings are expressly specified"?

Title 53a is the Penal Code and Title 53 is crimes where the AWB is. Those definitions are for Title 53a and have no bearing on title 53 unless it is stated in the particular law.

"following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:" which is not the title the AWB is under.

So do you agree that a lower receiver qualifies as a "firearm" in regard to 53-202m?

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:The original definition of an "assault weapon" in the 1993 CT AWB was one of only two things: A listed firearm (such as Colt Sporter, etc) or a semi-auto with a happy switch. Those firearms had to be registered in order to remain legal. In 2001 the definition was expanded greatly, but no additional requirement to register firearms was included.

As best as I can tell, this means semi-auto "pre-bans" which DID NOT meet the ORIGINAL (1993) definition of an AW, but did fall under the 2001 expansion still DO NOT need to be registered.

Am I correct?

(I think I am, because of the lack of a requirement to register in the 2001 legislation)

Yes you are correct ,in that semi-auto prebans (unlisted) do not have to be registered and can still be transfered.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:

(15) "Machine gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a submachine gun;

(16) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger;

(17) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger;

(18) "Pistol" or "revolver" means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;

(19) "Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

In a lot of other statutes a firearm is refered to as being defined by sec. 53a-3. In the assault weapon statute there is no reference made to 53a-3 and an assault weapon is defined within its own section. I am wondering if this falls under "Except where different meanings are expressly specified"?

Title 53a is the Penal Code and Title 53 is crimes where the AWB is. Those definitions are for Title 53a and have no bearing on title 53 unless it is stated in the particular law.

"following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:" which is not the title the AWB is under.

So do you agree that a lower receiver qualifies as a "firearm" in regard to 53-202m?

Last time I looked there was nothing that defined what a "firearm" is in that title, The closest thing would be to go with what the ATF has defined and thats a receiver. Plenty of gun shops in this state will sell pre-ban AR lowers built into complete rifles so that also leads me to believe they got the go head from the DPS to sell them, plus I know plenty of troopers that own pre-ban lowers on non work guns.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:

(15) "Machine gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a submachine gun;

(16) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger;

(17) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger;

(18) "Pistol" or "revolver" means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;

(19) "Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

In a lot of other statutes a firearm is refered to as being defined by sec. 53a-3. In the assault weapon statute there is no reference made to 53a-3 and an assault weapon is defined within its own section. I am wondering if this falls under "Except where different meanings are expressly specified"?

Title 53a is the Penal Code and Title 53 is crimes where the AWB is. Those definitions are for Title 53a and have no bearing on title 53 unless it is stated in the particular law.

"following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:" which is not the title the AWB is under.

So do you agree that a lower receiver qualifies as a "firearm" in regard to 53-202m?

Last time I looked there was nothing that defined what a "firearm" is in that title, The closest thing would be to go with what the ATF has defined and thats a receiver. Plenty of gun shops in this state will sell pre-ban AR lowers built into complete rifles so that also leads me to believe they got the go head from the DPS to sell them, plus I know plenty of troopers that own pre-ban lowers on non work guns.

Yeah, thats the way I have been looking at it. It is too bad that troopers can only cary Colts in this state. So if you want to carry a personal rifle (if you are not a Rifleman, On the Tactical Team, or don't feel like signing one out and back in every time) it has to be a post ban, unless you can get your hands on a preban Colt Carbine.

I have to agree that a pre-ban lower IS, in fact, the firearm as it's what has the serial number on it.

In my very humble opinion, the disucussion about having it xfered as a 'whole rifle" is really moot. Consider this. Assume, for a moment, you purchase a pre-ban rifle complete. The very next day, you tear it down and build it into something totally different: different caliber, shorter barrel, different stock config, etc., etc. So, now what? Is that rifle no longer the "original" rifle that was purchased and does that now exempt it from the regs? How the heck would ANYONE possibly know? I find that very hard to believe.

We've all been schooled that a receiver IS the gun as mentioned and there's nothing that concretely states that we can not purchase a stripped preban receiver and add our own compenents to it. What would happen if the preban you purchased had all brand new components on it like an M4? Would that prohibit you from "restoring" it to it's original A1 configuration? I can't see how it would. Finally, there were many companies who manufactured stripped preban lowers that were never rifles until the new owner built one from them. Are these exempt? How would anyone know? Preban is either preban all the time or it's not. There can't be any other explanation.

The second thing that I've wanted to discuss is the AK47/assault rifle situation.

I have a question.

The State of Connecticut has adopted some draconian interpretations that specifically affect the AK47 clones in 7.62 x 39, claiming that it is a bonefide assault rifle and then they required all of us who wished to keep ours to register them as assault weapons with the state by a date certain. Here's my question: Would you all not agree that since they are now all registered assault weapons, that any registered AK47 clone could now have all the "evil" bits that an assault rifle is noted for (e.g. bayo lug, threaded barrel, folding stock) regardless of age by State's own definition of what an assault rifle is??? In my humble opinion it does. The State can't have it both ways. They can either allow us to own properly registered semi AK47s clones that comply with the State's strict AWB regs or they can demand that we register our semi AK47 clones as assault weapons (GOSH I Hate that term!) and that , too me, means that bayo lugs and folding stocks et al go along with assault rifles.

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:*snip*The State of Connecticut has adopted some draconian interpretations that specifically affect the AK47 clones in 7.62 x 39, claiming that it is a bonefide assault rifle and then they required all of us who wished to keep ours to register them as assault weapons with the state by a date certain. Here's my question: Would you all not agree that since they are now all registered assault weapons, that any registered AK47 clone could now have all the "evil" bits that an assault rifle is noted for (e.g. bayo lug, threaded barrel, folding stock) regardless of age by State's own definition of what an assault rifle is??? In my humble opinion it does. The State can't have it both ways. They can either allow us to own properly registered semi AK47s clones that comply with the State's strict AWB regs or they can demand that we register our semi AK47 clones as assault weapons (GOSH I Hate that term!) and that , too me, means that bayo lugs and folding stocks et al go along with assault rifles.

What do you think?

I've been wanting to ask this question for a long time.

Rome

no.

semiauto rifles with pistol grips and detachable mags made after Sept. '94 cannot have the extra naughty bits.

i think you are getting mixed up here.

1) "properly registered" AW's don't have to comply with the state AWB. that's WHY they are registered AW's...

2) the only weapons that DO have to comply are weapons manufactured after the cutoff date, which don't have to be registered since by complying with the state's AWB are not "assault weapons"

3) the sate doesn't have to do anything, let alone open the registry which...

4) is closed forever excepting extremely rare circumstances which probably don't even apply to anyone anymore. which means you can either buy a gun manufactured post-94 and leave off the extras, or hunt down a pre-94 gun. regarding AK's, i don't think there really are any "pre-bans" that are legal to own in CT in 7.62, though i'm not up to speed on CT law in this regard.

There are no preban AK types in 7.26x39 that can be transfered in CT now. Whatever was already registered is it. You can get preban norincos and polytechs in .223 with all the "evil features" on them and prebans in 5.45 if you can find them but 7.62x39 is a definate no-no.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:There are no preban AK types in 7.26x39 that can be transfered in CT now. Whatever was already registered is it. You can get preban norincos and polytechs in .223 with all the "evil features" on them and prebans in 5.45 if you can find them but 7.62x39 is a definate no-no.

that's not entirely true... you can get a full auto transferrable AK47 legally in CT...

Originally Posted By DK-Prof: of course I could be wrong, and he could be a wild-eyed filth-encrusted hippy, living in a delapidated shack where he grows weed in the back yard, and logs onto the internet with his bicycle-powered generator

I have to agree that a pre-ban lower IS, in fact, the firearm as it's what has the serial number on it.

In my very humble opinion, the disucussion about having it xfered as a 'whole rifle" is really moot. Consider this. Assume, for a moment, you purchase a pre-ban rifle complete. The very next day, you tear it down and build it into something totally different: different caliber, shorter barrel, different stock config, etc., etc. So, now what? Is that rifle no longer the "original" rifle that was purchased and does that now exempt it from the regs? How the heck would ANYONE possibly know? I find that very hard to believe.

We've all been schooled that a receiver IS the gun as mentioned and there's nothing that concretely states that we can not purchase a stripped preban receiver and add our own compenents to it. What would happen if the preban you purchased had all brand new components on it like an M4? Would that prohibit you from "restoring" it to it's original A1 configuration? I can't see how it would. Finally, there were many companies who manufactured stripped preban lowers that were never rifles until the new owner built one from them. Are these exempt? How would anyone know? Preban is either preban all the time or it's not. There can't be any other explanation.

The second thing that I've wanted to discuss is the AK47/assault rifle situation.

I have a question.

The State of Connecticut has adopted some draconian interpretations that specifically affect the AK47 clones in 7.62 x 39, claiming that it is a bonefide assault rifle and then they required all of us who wished to keep ours to register them as assault weapons with the state by a date certain. Here's my question: Would you all not agree that since they are now all registered assault weapons, that any registered AK47 clone could now have all the "evil" bits that an assault rifle is noted for (e.g. bayo lug, threaded barrel, folding stock) regardless of age by State's own definition of what an assault rifle is??? In my humble opinion it does. The State can't have it both ways. They can either allow us to own properly registered semi AK47s clones that comply with the State's strict AWB regs or they can demand that we register our semi AK47 clones as assault weapons (GOSH I Hate that term!) and that , too me, means that bayo lugs and folding stocks et al go along with assault rifles.

What do you think?

I've been wanting to ask this question for a long time.

Rome

A stripped lower which IS a firearm IS NOT an AW without the evil features. The date and the presence of evil features in the same residence makes it an AW. If someone bought a stripped lower and didn't receive their parts to asseble it into an AW until after 9/13/1994 then that lower IS NOT a preban AW. It is simply a stripped lower that can ONLY be assembled POST BAN.

Now proving this will be hard for anybody to do either way but I am just trying to make people aware of the fact that the DATE of Manufacture alone is not enough.

AK47's that are registered can have ALL the evil features. This is how CA residents get around the ban with AR's that are not on the list.

If they are not registered, sell them out of state and buy a 223 or 5.45 version.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:There are no preban AK types in 7.26x39 that can be transfered in CT now. Whatever was already registered is it. You can get preban norincos and polytechs in .223 with all the "evil features" on them and prebans in 5.45 if you can find them but 7.62x39 is a definate no-no.

that's not entirely true... you can get a full auto transferrable AK47 legally in CT...

Yeah, I was thinking in semi-auto terms. You can also have a preban colt ar15 if it is a registered machinegun.

Originally Posted By audibk:AK47's that are registered can have ALL the evil features. This is how CA residents get around the ban with AR's that are not on the list.

Even if they were in post ban configuration when registered? I'm not so sure about that, considering the AK type is banned by name and not by feature count per se. Also CAs laws are written differently then ours so what works for one state may not work for another.

I'll tack it in a day or two, these posts usually get more exposure when they are floating on page one............

and thanks to CTBuilder1 for starting this off........

"...My approach is to focus on firearms over women, because its hard to kill someone with a woman, unless you're talking about a slow, painful emotional death by nagging that eats away at your very soul from the inside out." -El Camino

A stripped lower which IS a firearm IS NOT an AW without the evil features. The date and the presence of evil features in the same residence makes it an AW. If someone bought a stripped lower and didn't receive their parts to asseble it into an AW until after 9/13/1994 then that lower IS NOT a preban AW. It is simply a stripped lower that can ONLY be assembled POST BAN.

What did you find that made you come to this conclusion? That applied to the federal AWB and was an ATF thing, the CT ban is it's own insane monster. There is no definition as to what a firearm is in the law, it would have been easier to interpret if the AWB said as long as the assault weapon was made before 94. This leaves the door open to convert a pre-ban firearm IE reciever or a pre- ban nonassault weapon ilike a 10/22 or M1 carbine into a assault weapon as long as they were made before sept 94. I think it is obvious that gun stores sell pre-ban ARs built on complete or stripped lowers. I remember seeing a letter on line some place that some one wrote to the CSP where they said yes a pre-ban lower is considered a firearm, I'll have to try and find it. I know a trooper that has been trying to get a definintion from DPS as to what a AK-47 type weapon is and they have always given him extremely vague answers.

A stripped lower which IS a firearm IS NOT an AW without the evil features. The date and the presence of evil features in the same residence makes it an AW. If someone bought a stripped lower and didn't receive their parts to asseble it into an AW until after 9/13/1994 then that lower IS NOT a preban AW. It is simply a stripped lower that can ONLY be assembled POST BAN.

What did you find that made you come to this conclusion? That applied to the federal AWB and was an ATF thing, the CT ban is it's own insane monster. There is no definition as to what a firearm is in the law, it would have been easier to interpret if the AWB said as long as the assault weapon was made before 94. This leaves the door open to convert a pre-ban firearm IE reciever or a pre- ban nonassault weapon ilike a 10/22 or M1 carbine into a assault weapon as long as they were made before sept 94. I think it is obvious that gun stores sell pre-ban ARs built on complete or stripped lowers. I remember seeing a letter on line some place that some one wrote to the CSP where they said yes a pre-ban lower is considered a firearm, I'll have to try and find it. I know a trooper that has been trying to get a definintion from DPS as to what a AK-47 type weapon is and they have always given him extremely vague answers.

This might help with the AK47 type question. I had remembered seeing this a while back so I pulled it out of the archives.

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a,provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

I guess technically it only says "such firearm" it does not say "such assault weapon." So the firearm itself has to be manufactured before such date weather it has/had the parts count to make it technically an assault weapon or not.

Once again, I understand where audibk is coming from with his argument but for that argument to be airtight then the statute would have to read like this:

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm assault weapon was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

Scott40 is correct about a stripped receiver not counting as a preban assault weapon under the federal law and that the federal AW law no longer applies.

A 10/22 preban is a semi-auto with a detachable magazine, but you can also pistol grip it, put a folding stock on it and throw a silencer on it all at the same time and be in compliance with CT law.

A Norico 84s preban came in before the import ban and is pre 9/13/94 so if you have one with a fixed stock you can convert to a folding stock because folding stock models also entered the country at the same time. Where this gets confusing is with the SKS. Obviously these things are pre '94 but by adding a detachable mag and pistol grip then you are in violation or the 922(r) and 922(v) territory of federal law. These concern imported weapons and parts count.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a,provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994..

Let's not take this out of context. The complete sentence refers to an AW as defined in section 3 and 4 and that AW, defined in 3 or 4, has to be older than 9/13/1994 to be legal. It is pretty clear. I don't see why you are trying to find a different meaning.

I'm done with this. Maybe you will have time to read it again in jail. If you can't get documentation on a stripped lower, it better have a born on date of 93 or older and hopefully the guy had another AR in his possession to meet 4.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a,provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994..

Let's not take this out of context. The complete sentence refers to an AW as defined in section 3 and 4 and that AW, defined in 3 or 4, has to be older than 9/13/1994 to be legal. It is pretty clear. I don't see why you are trying to find a different meaning.

I'm done with this. Maybe you will have time to read it again in jail. If you can't get documentation on a stripped lower, it better have a born on date of 93 or older and hopefully the guy had another AR in his possession to meet 4.

This thread is all about trying to hash out as much information as possible to come to some answers, you don't have to be negative about it. Everyones opionion and take on the law should be discussed and debated.

With AR lowers I agree I get a little nervous with the ones with serial numbers closer to the begining of the ban. But a lot of FFL dealers, inlcuding mine, is standing by the fact that a stripped preban lower meets the criteria.

In your opinion, do you believe that a preban 10/22 can have a pistol grip and silencer added to it and be within CT compliance (or an M1A for that matter), wherein a postban could not?

(1) "Person" means a human being, and, where appropriate, a public or private corporation, a limited liability company, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality;

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

Subdivision 4 of subsection a:

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

A company manufacturing a lower receiver would most likely have, in their possession, parts in which an assault weapon could be rapidly assembled from. I believe this would be sufficient to satisfy the criteria set forth by the general statute.

I know audibk said he is done with this discussion, but if you happen to look at this let me know what you think. I think this was your main concern about a stripped lower not counting, and I wonder if this would change your mind.

I found A link to an email someone hade sent to the SLFU in 2004 in regards to the subject, basically they tell him the answer is yes to all his questions and refer to 53-202m for his questions invovling prebans. Again I can't vouch for the Authenticity of it, its just some thing I found searching the net. I do know someone related to a person at the SLFU so I might have to shoot him an email to see if he can get clarification.

1)Would it be legal to purchase a pre-1994 non-Colt AR15 lower receiver and assemble it to the pre-federal assault weapon ban specifications? In other words would it be legal to assemble the pre-1994 lower into a complete rifle which would have a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, and bayonet lug?

If the answer to this question above was "yes", then that pretty much settles it assuming this is a legit question and official answer. I'm inclinded to think that anyone who put this up would be honest about the authenticity.

The problem I have with the letter, however, is the last paragraph which, to me, appears contradictory:

So the only AR15 type rifles that can have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and collapsible stock legally in CT would be ones that were owned prior to October 1, 1993 and registered as “assault weapons” prior to October 1, 1994 correct?

I'm totally confused. But, I understand why I'm confused. It's because these "regulations' were written to confuse and obviscate. We are supposed to be chasing our tails. Even when we apparently find a definitive answer, we then discover something contrary. This is why it's my opinion that no one can really know what's what. Bruce Stern once told me that "anyone who owns guns in Connecticut is a potential defendant". Those were sage works, indeed.

Maybe somebody here who is smarter than me can bring some sanity to this otherwise very conflicted discussion.

Cabinetman, I've tried to locate a copy of the original CT AW legislation but haven't found one. However, I am 99.9% sure that the definition of an "assault weapon" (atleast as far as CT law is concerned) in the 1993 law defined an AW as one of two things:

If a firearm met either of these two criteria, it either had to be registered or gotten rid of in the manner prescribed by the law. Obviously, there were plenty of semi-auto "pre-ban" rifles out there that didn't fall into those two categories so they didn't have to be registered or disposed of (to remain legal).

In 2001, the CT definition of an "assault weapon" was greatly expanded but NO requirement was included in this new legislation for additional registration. Therefore, all those semi-autos that didn't fit the 1993 definition ARE STILL LEGAL and DON'T have to be registered.

Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.

the answer is yes to all questions you have submitted, refer to 53-202m any other questions feel free to contact us at 860-685-8027

it states specifically in the statute what is exempt from being registered, so the last part of the letter and the answer given is false. Those firearms, as described, would not have to be "registered assault weapons".

This looks like a response from someone who can really give a shit less about the question, a one sentence response, prob typed with one hand while having a conversation with someone else. The equivalent of "sure whatever you say, I can't be bothered" This attitude is very common from the SLFU who may I remind you is a law enforcement body and not a law making body and can only enforce the statute as it is written, not make up new laws as they go along.

I have friends at the CSP and they know all the SLFU people but they do not want to get involved with any of these questions. The guys I know are not "gun guys" and really could care less.

What it comes down to I think not being a lawyer, basically it is up to an individual officers interpretation of the law. If the court or prosecutor agrees thats another story. The SLFU is not a judical or legislative body all they can do is interpret the law and we will all admit the laws here in connecticut are not the best worded and can be vague but this also can lead to many loopholes.

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:Quoted from the link in the previous post:

1)Would it be legal to purchase a pre-1994 non-Colt AR15 lower receiver and assemble it to the pre-federal assault weapon ban specifications? In other words would it be legal to assemble the pre-1994 lower into a complete rifle which would have a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, and bayonet lug?

If the answer to this question above was "yes", then that pretty much settles it assuming this is a legit question and official answer. I'm inclinded to think that anyone who put this up would be honest about the authenticity.

The problem I have with the letter, however, is the last paragraph which, to me, appears contradictory:

So the only AR15 type rifles that can have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and collapsible stock legally in CT would be ones that were owned prior to October 1, 1993 and registered as “assault weapons” prior to October 1, 1994 correct?

I'm totally confused. But, I understand why I'm confused. It's because these "regulations' were written to confuse and obviscate. We are supposed to be chasing our tails. Even when we apparently find a definitive answer, we then discover something contrary. This is why it's my opinion that no one can really know what's what. Bruce Stern once told me that "anyone who owns guns in Connecticut is a potential defendant". Those were sage works, indeed.

Maybe somebody here who is smarter than me can bring some sanity to this otherwise very conflicted discussion.

Rome

Yeah I could not make sence of what they were saying, it was like yes prepans are legal, in the next breath no they are not. Like CTBuilder said it sounds like someone who deos not care just gavea quick answer.

Whew! I thought I was losing my mind. That happens whenever I start trying to divine the meaning of these contorted regs.

And, you are correct about a LEO deciding about what's legal and what's not on the spot. He could take your weapon and make you prove that it does comply with the regs to get it back. While I might try to reason with him at the time, I wouldn't argue to vehemiently as I wouldn't want to start a ruckus. Still, this is what we are facing here if we want to play with the big toys. A guy with a chip on his shoulder wouldn't give a bolt action rifle a second look. Bring out the evil black things, however, and you'll be scrutinized. Hey! That's profiling! LOL

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:Whew! I thought I was losing my mind. That happens whenever I start trying to divine the meaning of these contorted regs.

And, you are correct about a LEO deciding about what's legal and what's not on the spot. He could take your weapon and make you prove that it does comply with the regs to get it back. While I might try to reason with him at the time, I wouldn't argue to vehemiently as I wouldn't want to start a ruckus. Still, this is what we are facing here if we want to play with the big toys. A guy with a chip on his shoulder wouldn't give a bolt action rifle a second look. Bring out the evil black things, however, and you'll be scrutinized. Hey! That's profiling! LOL

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:CT General statute definition for person:

(1) "Person" means a human being, and, where appropriate, a public or private corporation, a limited liability company, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality;[snip]Subdivision 4 of subsection a:

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the sameperson.

So what if someone bought the Tapco kit for the 10/22 from Cabela's in East Hartford and had a 10/22 in their possession? Would that suffice as enough intent to manufacturer an assault weapon? Or would Cabela's, by simply possessing that same component be in violation themselves.... Assuming that they sell 10/22s in East Hartford?This brings up a lot of questions/situations that could turn very bad for more than a few individuals. What are the penalties for possession of an assault weapon?

I don' think CSP are going to raid Cabelas for having 10/22's and Tapco kits in the same store. The law in this state is so ridiculous that's why 7/8s of the rest of the country has done away with it. But our attorney general must know better choosing to keep the law in effect. Just like if you own a registered M16 a preban AR15 and a postban AR15. You are possession now of a variety of parts that could possibly get you in trouble if you put any M16 parts on either of the ar15s or if you put the preban upper on the postban lower, etc. But in owning those three guns you are not in violation of CT laws, that would be absurd.

The main reason why people in this state are interested in buying and owning preban guns is so they can have the same rights as the majority of the country. I can go 2 hours north to VT or NH where people can buy a brand new gun with all the "evil features" but that same gun can't be bought or owned here. Ridiculous! Is that gun any more dangerous because of a flash hider or bayonet lug, or even a collapsible stock. The same gun in post or preban configuration can accomplish the very same task. So why should we have to own neutered guns that become, somehow, more politically correct.

Read or interpret the law how you will. If you do not feel comfortable buying or owning a pre ban then by all means don't do it. If you will only buy or own a preban that has a letter from the manufacturer that it left the factory as a complete rifle or was assembled into a complete rifle before 9/13/94 then that is your call. And if you feel comfortable buying a stripped preban lower that is also up to you. Use the information here to form your own conclusion based upon the laws at hand. The statute that I and others have posted came directly from The Connecticut General Statute.

If you want to call up the SLFU and have them give you the run-around go ahead. They really don't want to be bothered other than to give a conformation number for a transfer.

Talk to your trusted FFL dealers and see what they have to say. Because if they sell you something that turns out to be not legal they are subject to penalties as well. NGX and remarkable both deal in prebans. Hoffmans on the other hand will give you some line of shit like they gave me when I was first looking, they are another group of people who cannot not be bothered, they are doing you a favor just by being in business.

Great effort here, CTbuilder1. Pretty clear to me too. You just have to follow the wording.

First, can everyone agree, a stripped, AR15 LOWER RECEIVER is considered THE FIREARM.

The BATF sure seems to think so, as does the SLFU in Middletown. It's an FFL item, w/serial #, etc...try buying a new one without a background check and paperwork.

CT General Statute 53-202a lists the 4 definitions of what is considered an "assault weapon" here in Connecticut. We are all quite familiar with them.

CT General Statute 53-202m allows for certain "assault weapons" as defined in only 53-202(3)(A) and 53-202(4) to remain legal in Connecticut, providing *THE FIREARM* was legally manufactured prior to 9/13/94

53-202(3)(A) A semiautomatic *RIFLE* w/detachable magazine and 2 or more evil features is under CT law an "assault weapon".

53-202(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a *FIREARM* into an "assault weapon" as defined above in 53-202(3)(A).

To me, rapidly assembling a complete M4 parts kit (combination of parts) onto a stripped, pre-9/13/94 manufactured, (Eagle Arms, Essential Arms, Sendra, SGW etc) lower receiver (*FIREARM*) will convert that *FIREARM* into a semiautomatic *RIFLE* w/detachable magazine and 2 or more evil features. Although an "assault weapon" by definition, it is CT legal because of the lower receiver(*FIREARM*) manufacturing date.

For those that disagree, so be it. Stay away from stripped lowers. More for the rest of us. I just can't imagine NGX and Joel Cramer would risk selling anything that wasn't legal.

FWIW, my mothers fiance, is a practicing attorney, a retired CSP lieutenant, and pro-gun. He was a lawyer for the state cops for 5 years too. He felt (after several re-reads) that the statute allowed for lower receivers to be included also.

Never mind the infringements on our rights, I personally think statutes are poorly worded and ignorance about firearms, by the jackasses in Hartford, goes without saying.

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:I have to agree that a pre-ban lower IS, in fact, the firearm as it's what has the serial number on it.

In my very humble opinion, the disucussion about having it xfered as a 'whole rifle" is really moot.

This is my understanding of the CT laws. No where does it mention that the rifle must have been in a specific configuration. It's bad enough that the State DPS is currently making up their own laws without the shooting community not being aware of the existing ones in place.